Childlessness and social and emotional loneliness in middle and later life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite theoretical accounts asserting the importance of children for the wellbeing of individuals as they age, research evidence suggests that children may be inconsequential when it comes to loneliness. Yet, there is reason to expect some subgroups may be more vulnerable to the impact of childlessness than others and this may also differ depending on the type of loneliness being assessed. This paper addresses the relationship between childlessness and social and emotional loneliness in middle and later life, including differential vulnerability associated with age, gender and marital/partner status. The study drew on data from three waves (2007, 2012 and 2018) of the Canadian General Social Survey for a nationally representative sample of adults aged 45 and older (N = 49,892). In general, childlessness assumed greater importance with regard to social than emotional loneliness. Women reported lower levels of social loneliness in conjunction with childlessness than men. Further, childlessness was associated with higher levels of overall and social loneliness among older than middle-aged adults. Fewer interactions were evident between marital/partner status and childlessness. Among women specifically, those who were co-habiting, separated/divorced or never married reported lower levels of social loneliness than their married counterparts. In contrast, childlessness was linked to greater emotional loneliness only among separated/divorced men and widowed women. Overall, our results suggest that having children available does matter for feelings of loneliness in middle and later life but that the relationship varies and is contingent on the social contexts (age, gender, marital/partner status) and the type of loneliness (social, emotional) involved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".